Saturday, November 28, 2015

If computer science is not real science, can researchers of computer science/engineering pretended to be scientists/engineers?

Software researchers are blinded by their prejudice and confirmation bias. They refuse to consider the possibility that definitions based on their flawed assumptions about the essential property and nature of the physical components might be wrong (e.g. nature of components is not reuse). One can even convince a devote priest, a possibility that there is no God. But one can’t make software researchers to see the obvious reality and investigate Truth:

I contacted hundreds of researchers and they used every possible excuse in the world to avoid their obligations and sacred duty, which is to investigate the Truth and Reality. Pursuit of absolute truth is not only an obligation of real scientists but also a sacred duty. They made up their mind and not open to rational reason or investigating Reality. Simply they are refusing to know reality to investigate Truth. This is how members of any cult behave.

It would send shockwaves across research community of any mature scientific disciplines, if one of the basic discoveries or axioms (considered to be self-evident fact) at the root of a major sub-discipline of any mature scientific disciplines has never been tested and might be flawed. The software researchers justify their relying on untested axiom by saying that the computer science is not real science and/or software engineering is not real engineering. If that is true, why do they pretend that they are scientists, researchers and/or engineers? Instead of blocking the progress of knowledge, they must have integrity to allow real scientists to investigate the reality. If computer science is a religion they must be priests. If computer science is a cult they must be cult leaders.

Even the basic sciences were not real science until a flawed axiom (considered to be self-evident fact) at the root was exposed. Saying that the Sun is at the center (500 years ago) offended common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. The philosophers (scientists referred to as philosophers) blinded by their prejudice and confirmation bias, choose to impression Galileo for life rather than investigate reality by looking through his telescope.

If the philosophers were wrong (i.e. a cult) for relying on untested axiom (i.e. the Earth is static) until 500 years ago, software researchers and scientists were also a cult for relying on axiom that were never tested. No one can name, who discovered and who proved the definitions for so called software components and CBSE. If I am wrong, where can I find the documentation for the proof? Defending and relying on untested axioms (by insisting the axiom is self-evident Truth requires no validation) is not science but a cult.

History proved that no real science can ever be created by relying of an untested flawed myth (by concluding that the myth is self-evident truth requires no validation). How any one can pretend to be scientists/researchers, if they insist that there is nothing wrong in relying on untested fundamentally flawed axiom for advancing the our knowledge (e.g. when there is no evidence exists to show any one ever validated the axiom)? Furthermore almost every one admits that existing concepts and definitions for CBSE contradict reality we know about the physical components and CBD of physical products.

Mankind already wasted 30 years by relying untested axiom (i.e. myth) and willing to waste rest of their life by relying on the myth rather than investigate the Truth and Reality. If this kind of flaw is discovered in basic sciences such as physics or botany, wouldn’t it send a shockwaves? Unfortunately software researchers justify this by saying computer science is not a real science and yet they consider them selves scientists and researchers.

How can they consider themselves scientists and engineers, if they insist computer science is not real science and software engineering is not real engineering? If computer science is real science, can they rely on untested myth (by insisting that it is self-evident fact that needs no validation)?  Don’t they need to have an irrefutable proof for the basic facts on which they have been relying for advancement of knowledge? If the basic fact on which they have been relying is flawed, isn’t every concept derived most likely be flawed?

They made up their mind and not open to rational reason or investigating Reality. This is how members of any cult behave.  Not only they are wasting their time by relying on untested myth, they are teaching the myth (as if it is self-evident Truth) to brainwash impressionable students to expand the cult. If one ready to accept software is not real science/engineering rather than investigate Truth, how can he consider himself a scientist/researcher?

Can any real scientist ignore reality and continue to rely on unproven myths (by refusing to investigate reality), even after acknowledging that the myths were never validated, and has no basis in reality but in fact contradict reality?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

No comments:

Post a Comment